Wikipedia's peer review process is a feature where an editor can receive feedback from others on how to improve an article they are working on, or receive advice about a specific issue queried by the editor. The process helps users find ways for improvement that they themselves didn't pick up on. Compared to the real-world peer review process, where experts themselves take part in reviewing the work of another, the majority of the volunteers here, like most editors in Wikipedia, lack expertise in the subject at hand. This is a good thing—it can make technically worded articles more accessible to the average reader. Those looking for expert input should consider contacting editors on the volunteers list, or contacting a relevant WikiProject.
To request a review, see the instructions page. Nominators are limited to one review at a time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other reviews. Any editor may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comment be acted on. Editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to improve it to FA toward the end of the year or later, depending on how much work is needed. I have recently improved the article to GA. Any comments that help improve the article are welcome, from source suggestions to full reviews.
I'm listing this article for peer review because I am looking to take it to FAC in the semi-near future. I'm looking to work out any kinks prior to that, and also make sure the article has FA potential to begin with. While I do already have a song FA to take references from that also went to peer review prior to FAC, I think it's the best move to do it for this one as well to make sure the ground is stable and I don't jump into things. Still hesitant from how badly my first song FAC went.
Hi! I just wanted to point out a few stylistic prose things I noticed in the article:
"six-minute long" — Since all three words modify the succeeding phrase, they would all be hyphenated together: "six-minute-long".
"ultimately resulting an abrupt stop that leads into the bridge." — I presume it is supposed to be "ultimately resulting in an abrupt stop that leads into the bridge"?
"two lovers that go on a crime spree" — Both lovers are humans (presumably) so it would be "two lovers who go on a crime spree".
"Alessandra Schade of Alternative Press described it a 'slow, eerie guitar riff'." — the "described it a" structure is one I've certainly used before, so I see why you have, but to my knowledge, strictly speaking, it is an error. I'd add the missing "as" just in case.
"frentic verses" — "frenetic"?
"six minutes run-time" — "six-minute run-time"?
"more to akin to a film rather than a song." — "more akin to"?
"his lovers death repeatedly." — I assume you're referring to the death of his lover, in which case it would be "his lover's".
"that made good use of it's six-minute run time" — "its"?
"It was produced by Geoff Rickly." — This is purely subjective, but to me this sentence feels abrupt. Its contents seem to be able to blend easily into the preceding sentence, so I would personally write "...to begin recording their first studio album, I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, which was produced by Geoff Rickly."
"Rickly produced it" — Isn't that implied by him producing the album?
"At the 2:50 mark" — "mark" feels informal to my ears. Perhaps just "At 2:50" or "At 2 minutes and 50 seconds"?
"the song is an analogy on Gerard Way's willingness to die for his loved ones based on the text present in the album's inlay" — I feel like "on" isn't the best preposition to use with "analogy". Perhaps it's "for"? Also, "present" is superfluous.
Otherwise, the prose has that distinctive quality I've noticed about few other articles where it's elegant but encyclopedically elegant, using literary structures in ways that present no subjective ideas. Great job. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about music articles to comment on sourcing, so this is where my good-faith comments stop. So there you go! Hope these comments can be of help! nub:)06:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! I addressed all of the above comments. Admittedly a lot of them are probably just grammar mistakes from me typing fast enough to where my keyboard doesn't register specific keys. That happens sometimes... λNegativeMP108:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status someday, preferably in time for it to run on Stranger Things' 10th anniversary in July.
I have been editing this article so that it looks polished and not cluttered. It has long ways for FA status but I could possibly try to get to GA Status. I just need a second opinion before getting a GAN.
Hey there! From a first look I frankly think this article is really far from being GA-level, let alone FA. However, I'll give some pointers below:
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Everything in the article needs to be cited. I cannot emphasize this enough, since it's one of the more important criteria over at both the GA criteria and the FA criteria. Immediately, I see a ton of uncited claims, which should either be cited or removed:
"Barbershop music is typified by close harmony—the upper three voices generally remain within one octave of each other."
"All-female barbershop quartets were often called beauty shop quartets, a term that has fallen out of favor"
"In popular culture, this style exemplifies the stereotypical barbershop quartet."
The explanations for the lead, baritone, and bass parts
More than half of the 'In popular culture' section
I question how much this article stays on topic. For one, why do all the polecats need to be listed in this article about barbershop quartets? I understand including it at, say, Barbershop music, but why here? In addition, there seems to be an inordinate about of information regarding organizations which promote barbershop music, but that's pretty tangential to barbershop quartets.
On the other hand, there is almost no information in this article about the history of female/mixed gender or international barbershop quartets, despite both being mentioned in the lead. I'd say that this is necessary for the sake of broadness, per WP:GACR#3.
Finally, the references which are currently in the article could use some work:
WP:BRITANNICA should ideally be replaced with secondary sources
"current organizations that promote the style typify it as an "old American institution." " is cited to exactly one organization, and is a WP:PRIMARY source at that
In fact, there are a *lot* of primary sources here, from BHS to Sweet Adelines to the Worldwide Barbershop Quartet Association. Some of these should be swapped out for secondary sources
I don't see what the link to the Google Play store is trying to reference (source #16)
What makes Reading Eagle (source #17) reliable?
All in all, I feel like this article is a pretty long way off from GA. Nonetheless, I hope that these pointers help guide you in the right direction, and I wish you luck if you do indeed attempt to improve this article :) Leafy46 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see then. I will try to fix some of the obvious pointers like the sources as you mentioned. Again, I'm still quite experienced of doing all of this but again, if I can find other editors that will help me, then I know anything is possible. TyronesEditsPages (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2011 mixtape by the Weeknd. I list this article for PR after having passed GA and DYK, aiming to polish the article towards meeting the Featured Article criteria. All help is appreciated :)
MetalSucks article about deftones influence is originally from MetalInjection
There are several articles that lack author credits including: [1], [2], [3]. Some of the have a long list of credits; template will automatically shorten them
globe and mail ref lacks an access date
The itunes ref about twenty eight is duplicated. And i don't think the itunes is necessary as it doesn't mention trilogy or house of balloons? Also, the allmusic ref in the tracklist section doesn't mention the track as a bonus track showing it among other album songs. Do we have a better source for twenty eight?
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for featured article status. Since this would be the first FAC I'm handling on my own, I wanted to seek input from experienced editors before moving forward. Any feedback on the prose, sourcing, structure, or areas that may need further development would be greatly appreciated, as I'm aiming to ensure the article meets the FA criteria as fully as possible.
In the ref titles "GO" should be "Go" per MOS:ALLCAPS
Fixed
Ref 6 should link "Bleeding Cool"
Fixed
Ref 20 should be marked as being in French
Added
Ref 29 is appearing as dead despite the original being live
I'm not sure how to fix that
Ref 27 is missing the website
What do you mean? the |work is listed as Behind the Voice Actors, and it links to the website
"In a 2020 official poll" in what medium?
Clarified
"Ash would later send Talonflame to live with Professor Oak" and "It was featured in his final team in a championship tournament, the Kalos Lumiose Conference" these two are in the wrong order
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in the featured list status, but I am not sure what to do, so I am here to check if there're points can be improved.
"Cheonmak School" was not an official name of the school. The Korean wording just means the school started off with tent classrooms. Also, the Seoul Shinmun source is actually talking about the legal entity which owns Hanlim Multi Art School and not really the school itself. A quick google search in Korean says the school itself opened in 2009. -- 00101984hjw (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You are right on it. I think it is the school firstly established as a tent in 1960, then teaching wousewives, and now the place began training idols because he found that students cannot find a place dancing, right? Saimmx (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also, it appears that the official English name of the school has been "Hanlim Arts School" since 2020 ([4], [5]). You might want to change this as well. ("Hanlim Multi Arts School" may appear more frequently in English search results but this is usually because a lot of Korean newspapers translate their articles using AI.) - 00101984hjw (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added all the information I can find on it, organized the sources accordingly and expanded greatly. I would like to submit this for GA review but I started this from scratch and would like a look-over before doing so.
Hi all, I wrote this article a bit ago and it was recently promoted to GA. The prose feels pretty in-depth to me, and I'm considering taking it to FAC, but would like to gather any other suggestions for improvement that I can first.
@UpTheOctave!: Thank you for these comments, I believe I have addressed them.
The two ScreenRant sources in the production section have been replaced with better sources. I believe that the one in critical response section may hold up in FAC as it is an attributed opinion and WP:RSP says that "it is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements". This meets both of those guidelines.
The Forbes contributor source is published by Rachel Elspeth Gross, some of her qualifications and previous publications are mentioned here and include reliable, independent sources, she has additionally been featured in two ([6], [7]) WFSU (an NPR member station) podcasts. Given that the information in question is based on an interview with the costume designer, and non-controversial, I believe this could meet WP:SPS as a subject-matter expert.
The Cowgirl source has been replaced
Lone Star Live is a [Texas-centered publication, because this source is largely used to support information on filming locations and the series filmed in Texas, I believe that it would meet the "the best available for this particular subject", on the HQRS page you linked as publications outside of Texas would not be as qualified. Additionally, as the about us page notes, they are owned by Advance Local, which is in-turn a subsidiary of Advance Publications (website), which is known for high-quality journalism in other publications, most notably Condé Nast (Vogue, The New Yorker, etc.)
Similar to the ScreenRant sources, The Upcoming and The Playlist are both specialize in entertainment areas. The former lists an editorial board meaning there is some sort of oversight, and an about the author page reveals this specific one has a post-graduate degree. The Playlist also has an editorial process, with the author of the article this page is citing, that website's editor-in-chief. Once again, these sources are only being used as attributed statements in the reception section.
Ok, that's fine. I'd just be prepared to make sure your rationales are particularly strong for FAC to show that these sources represent the best available for this particular subject. UpTheOctave! • 8va?19:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring it to Featured Article status. It is currently a GA. Anything is welcome! From my GA, I thought I had addressed everything, but let me know if some things are lacking in terms of an FA. For specific sections to look at: I'd appreciate looking at the Football section, I don't know much about football so I only hope it's accurate and comprehensive per the sources and in relation to his professional football stint. I also hope the tone is not too positive, or too biased for him.
sallam alaikum. i do know a bit about football (or soccer, i prefer calling it football), and i think the football section is pretty good, and quite comprehensive for what is a relative blip on this article. the tone's not too bad, the sources are good, too. unfortunately i don't have much else to add here, sorry =( but i hoped this helped =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, thanks for reviewing :) yes football is not the reason he's famous at all lol but considering he joined a team and almost bought a club, I guess it's a pretty big deal, so wanted to make sure it was alright. jolielover♥talk04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi jolie, a few notes on sourcing at an FAC standard:
What makes the Evening Standard, Spectrum Culture, Euphoria, Talent Recap, Culted, TBHonest, Hypebeast, United By Pop, Access All Areas, Endole, and Vicehigh-quality reliable sources (WP:HQRS and WP:FA?)?
Consistent reference title casing and linking of parameters will need to be sorted (WP:CITESTYLE).
Album titles and other major works should be placed in italics in reference titles, just like with normal text (MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE).
Simmilarly, songs and other minor works should be placed in quotes – single or double, alternating with other quotes (MOS:MINORWORK and MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
178 is 404-ing, so url-status should be set to dead.
My overall impression is that this is might not be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (WP:FA?). While there are a lot of quality newspapers and entertainment publications cited, I see a lot of zines and websites of questionable reliability and quality. I know that entertainment (especially teen entertainment) sourcing can be hard to come by, but is this the best sourcing available for this subject? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va?18:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mince pies are an integral part of Christmas for most people. They have an interesting history which is explained by their name: they originally contained meat and have changed their make-up and style over the last thousand years. This has been through a top-to-bottom rewrite recently and a trip to FAC is envisaged after PR. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I've been as picky as I can in the hope of fending off reviewers at FAC who don't understand food articles – and haven't we met some!
Throughout you need to decide if you are writing about "the mince pie" singular or "mince pies" plural.
"dates back to the 11th century" – but you use words rather than digits for other centuries (and much more pleasing that is, me judice).
"A mince pie comprises a sweet pastry shell—normally shortcrust" – hmm! I'd call shortcrust savoury and would refer to the related sweet pastry as pâte sucrée, and if you've ever made sweet puff pastry you're a better man than I am. But I don't press the point.
"this then changed to them becoming associated with Christmas" – we're into gerund – verbal noun – territory here, and "them" should be "their"
"The mince pie was attacked by the puritans during the interregnum" – blue links needed …
…"although they were stigmatised for their indulgent and supposed catholic connotations – singular/plural clash, as above.
"The pie is then baked in a moderate to hot oven until it is browned. They are often served" – ditto
"They are often served with an accompaniment such as … cheese" – cheese? Are you completely out of your mind?
It was a new one on me. There are two things I'd like to mention, both completely unconnected to the above. 1. It was an American source. 2. My sister enjoys a slice of cheese with Christmas pudding. I have always wanted some form of DNA tet to see if we are actually related. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"In the UK in the twenty-first century…" – I don't know anyone indigenous who calls our country "the UK". "Britain" is more idiomatic, meseems.
"this then changed to them becoming associated with Christmas" – another gerund: should be "their"
"Adrian Bailey identifies the origin of the mince pie as being from Cumberland" – "origin from" or just "origin?
"This was baked in a thick pastry case called a coffyn or coffin; this was often disposed of without being eaten" – could do with one less "this". Perhaps "which" after a comma rather than the semicolon?
"The mince pie was attacked by the puritans during the interregnum, although they were stigmatised for their indulgent and supposed catholic connotations" – as above.
"they were normally produced with a bases of shortcrust pastry and lids of puff pastry" – I think you need to lose the indefinite article.
An excellent suggestion. CC, if you have any thoughts or comments on the article, I would welcome hearing them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article will very likely be nominated for deletion by paid editors on behalf of the subject. My hope is editorial feedback will produce an article more likely to survive AfD. I'd deeply appreciate your review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on its overall structure, sourcing, and clarity, and to identify any issues that should be addressed before a potential Good Article nomination.
The lead should be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Every level 2 heading should be summarised in the lead.
The "Development" and "Reception" sections are quite long. I suggest summarising the text more effectively and using level 3 headings to break up the text
Suggest using [iabot.toolforge.org/index.php] to archive the websites. You might also want to expand out these citations by adding access dates and author last names.
As someone that accepted this article, these are my suggestions:
The text in the lead During development, Miju Games shared two roadmaps in 2022 and 2023 outlining planned features and updates. and The PC version holds a Metacritic score of 81 out of 100. could be removed. Same could be said about citations in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, provided that the information in the lead is repeated elsewhere in the article.
Perhaps the definition of "overwhelmingly positive" and "very positive" should be clarified as not all readers have Steam.
Also, if you haven't already, please feel free to read the good article criteria, and take a look at existing GA video game articles (perhaps those released after 2015) to get an idea of what it should look like. Otherwise, I feel this could be ready for GA! JuniperChill (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve addressed previous comments and revised the lead, sections, and citations. Thanks again for your feedback! If you notice anything else that should be improved to prepare the article for Good Article nomination, I’d appreciate any additional suggestions.
I've listed this article for peer review because...
This is the first article I've created with a substantial amount of prose, and I want to make sure I'm on the right track as I work to create and improve more articles for skiers. I'd appreciate feedback on the clarity and flow of the writing, level of detail included, level of technical language, what to include in the lede, and organization/structure (which seems to be fairly standard for ski racer articles). Any other comments or suggestions would be welcome as well, as I feel like there is a lot that I don't know that I don't know about creating quality articles.
Thanks, Wburrow (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
this has recently been recognised as a Good Article. I now want to get it ready for FAC. Any reviews, advice, comments or constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged.
Hi Metalicat, I will have a go at reviewing this article. I am not hugely interested in sport but I am quite interesting in this period of British history.--Llewee (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The early life section seems quite lacking in biographical detail. The 1891 census must list his parents jobs? Is anything known about his schooling, work before becoming a profession boxer, childhood interests or the like?
The article uses a fair bit of sports journalist type jargon; for instance, "establishing his standing in the lighter divisions before moving up in weight", "the British ring" and "he reversed over twenty rounds". I would suggest removing boxing terms that aren't needed and creating a "terminology" section to explain technical language that is essential.
The "military service during World War I" section implies that the government was using his celebrity for propaganda purposes. Could this be discussed more explicitly, possible broken into a subsection in this part of the article?
I think it would be helpful to group the information in the "Later life and post-boxing career" into a number of longer paragraphs and condense it down a bit. There was clearly a lot of media interest/boxing activities in the first decade or so of retirement, another paragraph could cover his personal life in the same period and third a might be sufficient for events after about 1930.
You use a lot of contemporary press coverage in the article. There is nothing wrong with using these sources but I think the reliance on them here might be slightly too great for FA. It would be helpful if you could find some academic sources. Unfortunately, my brief search on the Wikipedia Library didn't produce any results.
Evening Llewee, thanks for the review, it’s really helpful. I’ve expanded early life using the 1891 and 1911 census, and I’ve started stripping out unnecessary ringside jargon and have added a terminology section. I’ve also added more secondary sources to reduce reliance on contemporary press for interpretation.
I haven’t found reliable sources on schooling or childhood, so I’ve avoided speculation, but I’ll keep looking. I’ve strengthened the WWI section with secondary context on sport in the Army and added more on his recruiting and public appearances.
Regarding the first point, you have clearly improved the relevant section. If you could find him on the 1901 census you could probably find his employment before becoming a professional boxer. Does the 1891 census mention if his parents were born in Ireland? Llewee (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Evening, thank you and yes, I've found both his employment in the 1901 census and his parents country of birth in the 1891 Census. both facts added to the article. Thank you so much for the review and helpful tips. Metalicat (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first article I've expanded and I'd like to know how far it is from GA status. I would like guidance on its sourcing and clarity, though any additional suggestions are also appreciated!
Thanks, xceler⁸talk!23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments after a quick skim: I think this article is close to meeting the GA criteria. Here's some things you can do to make improvements before a nomination:
Information about the roller coaster's reception should be added to the end of the lead (one sentence)
"NewsPlusNotes" seems to be a blog and not a reliable source. I recommend removing it.
I've listed this article for peer edit because I recently added some information about the American preparations. Could someone with expertise review it for accuracy?
Also, I added a new image of American troops and would appreciate help with formatting it properly within the article. Thank you!
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been expanded significantly recently but I feel that there's also a lot of promo and that there are better ways to ensure WP:NPOV, especially in regard to the tenure section. I feel like there's also a lot that feels WP:UNDUE and that there are also an overdue amount of quotations from her and about her rhetorical style.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to eventually have it nominated as a featured article. As of now, the article might need more work. If someone could do a detailed check on the article that would help the editors with improving the article.
I created this article in August 2024 and got it promoted to GA status in November 2025. I would like to get this article promoted to FA status sometime in the near future, which is why I am listing it for peer review. Thanks, mdm.bla03:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This template should be substituted on the article's talk page.
Hi, I recently added information about the American preparations. Could someone with expertise review it for accuracy?
I also added a new image of American troops and would appreciate help with formatting it properly.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been chipping away at it and got rid of the various citation needed templates, but would like advice on what else to adjust. It's an extensive article, and takes multiple sets of eyes to find any issues.
Much love, rock on, thank you for your time!
This is an important and high-interest topic, attracting nearly 14,000 views per day, and I believe it has the potential to be developed into an FA. My first concern is the article's length. At over 13,000 words, it exceeds the size generally expected for a Wikipedia article. In my view, the topic could be summarised much more concisely, likely in fewer than 9,000 words, and a substantial trimming would almost certainly improve the article's overall quality. My second concern relates to sourcing. Given the sensitivity and prominence of the subject, the article should rely primarily on the highest-quality scholarly sources. At present, several references appear to come from publishers that do not operate a formal peer-review process. In addition, drawing more extensively on specialised peer-reviewed studies on 9/11 itself, rather than on more general works on terrorism or on Osama bin Laden, would strengthen the article considerably and ensure that the topic reflects the academic literature. Borsoka (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because...
this is one of my first big edits on Wikipedia. This article was translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, and it had many mistakes. I was able to fix the article using both 24 hour and 12 hour time and some of the places that didn't exist by looking at the Japanese article. I think there's still issues with the page organization and the references. I did add one reference, and I tried my best to do it correctly, but I may have done that wrong.
Thanks, Bulbatian (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clean up the grammar a bit and merge some of the duplicate information. Here are my thoughts briefly:
1. There is still some duplicate information in the article. I cleaned up some of it, but much is still in the article twice. The article organization is also not ideal at the moment and does not "flow" naturally in my opinion.
2. Much information is not cited. The article needs additional inline citations, particularly to support specific numbers/claims.
3. There is probably still a fair bit of awkward grammar in the article and inconsistencies in tense.
I don't think what I have done is really a full peer review, but the article needs some work in these areas before the article can be dug into for less low-hanging improvements.
I'm not sure if this is would be more appropriately listed under socsci or history, but I think it leans more towards history. Maybe I will seek a socsci review after the history review.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to what is missing from the article currently. I believe on the old "who, what, when, where, why" test, it often fails the who part to some extent as I often say X was done by "the state" rather than department Y within the state. I have also substantially reworded and reworked sections of the article after adding citations, so surely the alignment between the text and at least some of the citations will not be perfect.
This is also liable to be a contentious topic, and I don't intend to come across as blaming any particular group beyond maybe the Bulgarian Communist Party of the time, so I'd like suggestions of content to add that would increase the overall neutrality of the article where simply seeking to use neutral language might not be sufficient.
Edit: Note that this article is intimately connected to the 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria article. I have not had time to expand that article to the same extent as this one, but that one cannot really be understood without this article, though I do think they should be separate pages as that article is for the culmination that became true ethnic cleaning.
The first reference doesn't explicitly use the term "Revival Process"[8]. Its fine to use such references later in the article. But the very first reference should be an English language reference, accessible online, that says something along the lines of "The Revival Process describes a period in history where..." It builds the reader confidence in WP:V.VR(Please ping on reply)00:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to mix academic and news sources. Should I purge the non-academic sources from the document as most of what they say is repeated in academic sources anyway? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this historical event on the island of Hispaniola explains the reason behind its division. I understand it is an episode of Caribbean history that is vital to know and emphasize, which is why I want to ensure it meets the highest quality standards.
This is a really great topic, and one that I have passing familiarity with, though I have not used this name for the events. I wanted to clean up the references before any real peer review was done.
1. The reference format throughout this article was atypical, so I have changed many of them. Note that for organizational purposes, as the references were never only created in full once and called in a more short-form (they were called in the same full form repeatedly), I did quite a bit to organize the references. Essentially this was a copyedit and I used automated tools in part. Every reference was in a subpar way, so I deleted and re-added several references. I would really recommend that you check my commit to make sure that I did not delete anything or change the style on the references too much.
2. Also note that I was fairly aggressive with translation of sources information here. If you feel anything was not correctly translated (I only speak English and flawed Chinese), please change it back. I would love to see this article grow in the future.
3. I would really recommend you seek a copyedit of these sources. I am new to this and there are definitely still mistakes. Try the Guild of Copyeditors request page.
4. A few sources appear to be duplicates, but I do not want to change the current references. Will you take a look for duplicates? I noticed the records 132438 and 404390 are both cited twice slightly differently.
Specific issues:
5. "Resultados de búsqueda para banda norte espanola" was referenced, this was just a search result, can you find a specific reference to insert where that reference was?
6. There are a few titles of original documents which are not preserved on the various pages they are hosted on. I cannot always read centuries-old cursive in languages I do speak, let alone languages I do not, like Spanish. I would recommend you manually read these titles and replace them.
Looking it over, I would also suggest that some of the "overview" pictures at the end of the page contain some debatable information in multiple pictures. I personally think these pictures are pretty great generally, but they are clearly also translations. I'm not sure how appropriate they are at present for wikipedia, particularly for those who lack the background in the history of Hispaniola to discern this. There is also the issue of claimed/de-jure vs. de-facto territorial control in colonial maps from centuries past that arises again and again.
I do not want to suggest deletion of these maps, but at present I do not think they are ideal. Perhaps someone with more experience can add their perspective. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have tarted my work on the Trafalgar campaign, starting with this. I don't have any of the main sources, and have only just updated the sources.
This article has not gone to GA yet, so I will pull out my GA review template and adapt it. Note I do not have any familiarity with naval terms. Someone else can definitely read this more in-depth.
1. Prose:
Potentially confusing parts:
South American map. I do not understand the Caribbean as part of South America. I do not know how South American understand it, but I have looked at a particular period in the history of the Greater Antilles quite a bit, so I can say that it is atypical to present the Caribbean as part of South America in at least some circles. I would recommend changing the map to one the purely shows the Caribbean.
I'm not sure if the use of "stone frigate" in the infobox is right. I'm not familiar with naval terms at all, but this term was new to me and it appears to stem from this battle. Maybe replace the term in the infobox and note that the battle gave rise to the term in the article?
Acronyms and technical terms:
"ships of the line" and the other naval terms beneath it did not have wikilinks. I have added them. I have only a passing familiarity with those terms. I don't really know what a gunboat refers to in particular.
I have no idea what "cutting out" means? Does the wikilink even look correct?
The "scaling ladders" wikilink is empty which I added. Is there a similar page like a siege ladder page? Would Escalade work?
Conciseness:
Nothing strikes me as very non-concise right now, but a GA review will potentially more rigorously assess this.
Spelling and Grammar:
Does the letter that begins with IT include both I and T capitalized in the original? Take a look at that. Maybe include [sic] after IT if so.
Layout:
The general layout is fine. I have no issues.
Lead:
The lead is good right now.
Problematic Word Choice:
"...could have easily sunk..." is this true? It seems speculative without a source saying exactly that.
The lack of scaling ladders is often described as neglect. I would recommend a less loaded term.
"Vague orders" - maybe reword this or directly support with a source calling them vague.
2. References
Links Functioning:
You have taken care of this. Good work.
Citation Formatting:
Citation formatting is correct now. I would prefer if the "further reading" and "external links" sections were integrated and ultimately removed, but that is just my preference.
Quote Issues:
"the Court is of the opinion that Captain J. W. Maurice" is how this quote begins. If it begins with a lowercase letter, will you add [sic] to the right of it.
Divergence between reference and text:
I'm not familiar with a lot of this topic, so I will forgo this. Someone who is more experienced should assess this.
Citations to reliable sources:
I'm not familiar with a lot of this topic, so I will forgo this. Someone who is more experienced should assess this.
Original research:
I'm not familiar with a lot of this topic, so I will forgo this. Someone who is more experienced should assess this.
Copyvio and plagiarism:
Take a pass using Earwig yourself and manually assess. Nothing looks out of place for me.
3. Broad in its coverage
Major aspects:
This is one specific topic, so I believe it is broad now.
I think some military article typically have OOB information, but I am not active in those areas. Take a look at this.
Focus/scope:
There is a small amount of digression, but I think that is warranted. There are no "coat hanger" points made.
4. Neutral:
Participation in Arguments:
It does not participate there.
Potentially Contentious Labels:
None that I see.
Fringe Views:
None that I can see.
Minor Points Given Undue Weight:
None that I can see.
Competing Views Integrated Well:
I think they are.
5. Stable:
Pass/Fail:
It is stable currently.
6. Illustrated:
Images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eventually make this article reach Featured Article status and I'm asking people's opinions to see if there's any problem to fix.
@GrenadinesDes: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Please also consider reviewing articles at WP:FAC. This will help build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help clear the list, making your nomination stand out to potential reviewers. I also suggest seeking a FA mentor who can leave comments here and help give advice on getting your first FA. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to expand it content-wise and am looking for suggestions to improve it before I submit another GA nomination.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially expanded and sourced.
Feedback on structure, sourcing, neutrality, and overall readiness for future assessment processes (e.g. GA) would be appreciated.
This article's already gone through a peer review once, but now considering that it's considerably different from the peer-reviewed version months ago, I request another peer review for this.
Several things that I kindly want reviewers to inform me include coherence & cohesion, whether some sections should be grouped together, and potential sourcing problems.
Regarding sourcing, I get the general sense that those present are rather authoritative. However, I also notice that only three (by my count) Chinese-language sources are used. While this is not necessarily an issue (my understanding of ancient Chinese historiography is that much of it was published in the West until fairly recently), I would just note that other FAC reviewers might raise an eyebrow. I'm also embarrassed to admit that it was through doing this PR that I discovered the Harvc template for citing chapters/essays that are part of larger works. I have some fixing to do on articles I've written...
some scholars characterise it more specifically as a state religion I don't know if I'd leave this statement–which seems to be the perspective adopted throughout the article–unattributed beyond a vague wave to "scholars". Based on the contents of this article, I'd tend to agree with said scholars, but I would prefer a cleaner statement. If it is the consensus view of modern scholarship, we can state it in wikivoice without attribution to "scholars". If it is the consensus view of a particular school of scholarship, we can attribute it to that school.
canonised scriptures can be linked to Religious text. There are people who are wholly unfamiliar with any kind of religious terminology, so a concession to them is worthwhile when we can do so cheaply.
It is instead understood through oracle bone inscriptions I'm fairly certain that the meaning of this sentence is that the modern scholarly understanding of Shang religion is understood through surviving oracle bones. However, on first reading, I initially read that statement as suggesting that believers in Shang religion utilized oracle bone inscriptions for their understanding of their religion. Maybe rephrase this to nix the pronoun? Maybe ignore me (probably the prudent decision)?
bureaucratic or at least proto-bureaucratic An elaboration on what "bureaucratic" means in this context might be useful. Is it implying something specific about the hierarchical relationships between deities? Is it suggesting that the religion consisted of a formal clerical institution? Did Di have to contact the parish council before adding a sunroom?
For the caption of the characters that spell out Di, do each of the characters spell out Di's name or do they only spell out Di's name when together?
If you're aiming for FAC, you'll probably need to add alts to all the images in the article.
In the Divination section, the sentence beginning The oldest divinatory has four citations following it and a further explanatory note. That's a lot. Is it possible to remove even a single one of those citations, or is this claim especially complex/contested? If the latter, consider utilizing attributed statements.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently failed a GA nomination due to the reviewer's opinion that the article focuses too much on Rodger's perspective. Please see Talk:Elliot Rodger/GA1. I'd appreciate a fresh set of eyes to provide feedback on if this is a valid criticism and if so to what extent and recommend any changes to the article prior to any future GA nomination.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Featured Article soon. The article has already passed GA, but I want to make sure that the flow and formatting is good, and that it's easy to understand. I've tried to make sure that the sources and reference formatting is tight, so that part shouldn't need much (if any) work.
I've listed this article for peer review to try and expand this article. All of the information I’ve found is already in the article and I’m trying to find ways to extend it. I’m also wondering what the article would be rated as, because even though it’s pretty short, I feel like it goes into a decent amount of detail about the case.
Hey, if you want the article to be rated for sub-GA, try Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests. The people there do that quite a lot. I will say that the way you have done things look very clean compared to a number of shorter articles, so this will probably rate highly relative to its length.
I don't know enough to extend it, but as a general recommendation, read the sources yourself and pull what the sources say with some anesthetization of their content and avoiding their exact word-choice.
If you can maintain the styling, it will require some substantial lengthening, but it should be GANable at a relatively short length given it is a niche topic. Reassess once it hits 15k-20k or so. Pietrus1 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the upcoming presidential elections in Iraq is going to be hosted near the end of this month. Since this is the first article that I have created, I would like some feedback on what I could improve on.
These include:
1. What I could do instead in general next time
Did I do something wrong with the references?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Anything else that I may need to focus on?
2. What I should've done instead specifically with the article
Did I leave out some important details?
Did I violate some sort of wikipedia policy unknowningly?
Did I leave out some important details?
Did my writing tone contradicts WP:NPOV? Any other reasons on why it may be considered as "bad"?
1) The article is generally well-referenced, however WP:RSP warns against using Anadolu Agency as a reliable source for international politics and also has information on Al Jazeera Arabic, China Daily, and Al Arabiya. Of course, RSP is not a policy, so just take care with the sources and what you are getting from them. Also, the number of citations in the lead section is rather large, see MOS:LEADCITE and maybe think about moving some of those citations, especially because the information should be repeated in more detail elsewhere in the article.
2) Some of the potentially contentious statements (The Iraqi parliament has previously been unable..., The agreement has been criticised for encouraging corruption...) should be attributed to best be in compliance with WP:NPOV. Also, only including Donald Trump's reaction could be giving Trump undue weight as opposed to giving a wider range of international reactions.
3) There could be some minor copyediting (I boldly removed an extra "a").
At least you gave the background, which gave us an understanding of the constitutional framework. But I might shift that under a section "Electoral system".
I might recommend elaborating on other key affairs in Iraq at the time as the background, and also the results of the previous president and whether he's popular or what policies he has implemented under his term
An "electoral system" section could be created, with a subsection on the delays of the election dates
Pre-election activities to mention the endorsements, and activities of the individual parties
Nomination and campaign sections, if any
Also any commentary on Key issues that would influence the votes
Conduct of the election
Conventionally, the lead shouldn't have citations for it's a summary of the body, and I think at the moment, the article body is quite too thin. So I recommend copying/moving the cited content into the body and reorganize accordingly.
I'm thinking of promoting this article to featured list status, given there are plenty of sources and information for that to be possible. However, I have not promoted a featured list before, so I'd appreciate some tips on how to improve the current article, particularly with the placement of sources. I'm also pretty sure there is no "good list" category, so hopefully I am reviewing this correctly. :)
My thought process is the following: I'm currently working on getting every franchise to have at least one high-quality reliable source (most notably replacing all of the Game Rant sources). I think the table formatting is fine, but my only suggestion might be to remove the "reference" column in the table and move all of the sources to either the initial/latest game release to verify those claims, or to verify what the series is about. While the reference column is nice, it doesn't directly confirm what is stated in each section of the table, so moving the references could potentially fix that issue. Otherwise, all franchises in the table seem good to me. The only one that I have the slightest bit of doubt for is the Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball series, as the best source I could find is from Operation Sports, a source that I have no basis for reliability. Also, any suggestions to improve the lead section as a summary for ALL of Nintendo's franchises would be greatly appreciated, whether it is adding information or rewording part of it to be more professional.
I would recommend notes on series where the name differs between regions (Another Code, Brain Age). Also, the Daigasso entry could benefit from mentioning the name "Jam with the Band"; I believe it's a point of interest that the first game almost released in the US under this title and to later mention that the sequel did. I wonder if it should be titled Jam with the Band by virtue of that being the official English name.
I'm not sure about inclusion criteria. As far as inclusions go, I think it is a little inconsistent. Some series I believe should be considered include: Pokémon Snap, Pokémon Rumble, Pokémon Ranger, Pokémon Trozei, Pokémon Stadium, Pokémon Pinball, Crosswords, Magical Vacation, Nintendo Labo, Polarium, the "Robot" series (the official designation for Gyromite and Stack-Up), and Sin & Punishment. Of course, all depending on what sourcing says about there being a "series"..
Is there any official sourcing that establishes Excitebike as the series rather than "Excite"?
Is Hotel Dusk used as a placeholder alternative, or is this a "for lack of a better term" series?
I'm honestly a little stumped on what to call the Wars series, if it should just be called the Wars series. For instance, this official source calls it the "Advance Wars series", and the name stuck beyond the Game Boy Advance. I feel like we should talk about changing it to Advance Wars, as a name does not necessarily have to be all-encompassing (for instance, we call it The Legend of Zelda series despite a mainline entry being titled "Zelda II").
On that same note, Battalion Wars might be worth having as a separate entry (assuming there's RSes about this as a series); while connected to the Advance Wars series, it didn't start as one and has multiple entries.
Yoshi series should mention Yoshi's Island, as it's arguably the main Yoshi series. If possible, provide reliable sourcing to verify that games like Yoshi's Story, Crafted World, and Woolly World take after it.
Inconsistent use of Japanese names (Panel de Pon); on that note, I believe it'd be worth mentioning that the series has crossed over with other series.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have contributed significantly to it, and would like to know how else I can improve this article, and what issues persist within. I would like to nominate this for featured list status soon.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
